eduggs

How far off was QPF from the 3 or 4 run average on the EC? Or was it more the 3rd party clown maps that were off?

Radar looks pretty sweet. But oddly April-esque. Like a late Spring Ocean Gale. Very ragged echoes.

Good thing long term verification is so poor. I'd go warm for early Feb. because of persistence and background alone. But it's really too early to know. People can throw around all the correlations and analogues they want... they are modest at best. A small, unexpected wrinkle can change everything. We won't be able to see much into Feb. for at least 5-7 days.

Enjoy what you can even if it's an imperfect storm! Looks like a TROWAL to me - notoriously difficult to model. Full sunshine out my window for the first time in what feels like weeks... but your storm looks exciting AF to me. BOX snow map looks reasonable. Low low expectations leading in makes whatever happens more fun. Bust potential for sure. Funny how we miss the threats hiding in plain sight while we look for something more archetypal.

No argument. Worst winter of my lifetime to date hands down for both snow and temperatures.

It would be exciting if there were a renegade TROWELL or inverted trof well to the west of the modeled precip. shield. It's not like it's completely unprecedented, but very unlikely in this situation. There are just limited lifting mechanisms to generate precip. west of eastern LI. Scattered flurries are probably all most will get outside E LI, or SECT.

Problem might not just be surface temps. Might just need to wait until the mid-levels are saturated. There could also still be a warm layer near 800mb.

I think the radar looks pretty encouraging at this early juncture and low level temps look to be just cold enough for most areas west of the Canal. I share Tip's memory experience that these retrograding, decaying ocean lows with a NW displaced and unwrapping precip. field tend to underperform. But some of that failure was due to low level dry air, which we are not dealing with. So far I like the look on radar and satellite. I could see a band of .5" per hour developing tomorrow-tomorrow night. Could even envision a dual snow max with one inland near the Canal, and a second a little further west in a pivot zone. I'm probably biased by my rooting for someone to get a win.

For sure. And also not spoiled rotten from years of overperformance relative to climo.

Any snow lover in EMA not enjoying this setup is doing it wrong IMO. Weekend, long-duration, sub-basement expectation, nowcast with 0-4"+ possible. It checks a lot of boxes. These are special.

Fun, highly trackable, modestly long-duration event. I expect localized winners and losers. This could end up being the most fun event of the season for some in part because it's happening during a weekend, partially during the day.

Good question to which I don't have a great answer. Personally I don't consider anything past 10 days, even ensembles. And I try not to put much stock in anything beyond 7 days. Right now I'm looking for a specific mechanism shown in successive ensemble runs across multiple models that deliver a seasonably cold airmass to the SE and mid-Atl. I don't care about future modeled NAO or PNA state because I consider those lagging and not leading indicators. But I should note that I'm looking for different things locally than most of SNE, particularly C and NNE.

I've been on these boards as long as you have. I think you're a very good forecaster. But my observation is that our board collective success at seeing good outcomes coming beyond 10 days is very low. There are all sorts of biases at play - confirmation, recency, availability etc... and a tendency to explain away failures and exaggerate successes. What I have observed is that during lousy winter periods, things tend to flip more favorable every, lets say, 2-3 weeks. With people claiming to see a favorable "pattern" coming a roughly similar intervals, these things are bound to line up every now and then. But we are still limited by model skill at those extended ranges, and if we bothered to actually keep score, we would see that the success rate is very low. If someone wants to do it, go back through the past 2 years of posts and look up how often someone posted a "good look." Brooklynwx is a perfect candidate to focus on. Then count up how many times the good look beared fruit.

We're speaking past each other and probably not reading full posts. Problem is simple. The seasonable modeling bias across the full spectrum of guidance beyond 7 days is too cold in the east and too warm in the west. People aren't making the adjustment. So again, the problem is the correlation between a modeled "good look" and future outcome, superimposed on top of a questionable correlation between a loosely defined "look" and local non-mountain snow. The solution is to 1) focus closer in and 2) pay more attention to specific ensemble modeled features as opposed to mathematically averaged parameters.

Call it modest or moderate then - whatever you like; semantics. And lets define it as the correlation between certain geophysical parameters and something like temperature or east coast cyclogenesis. Because snow is truly a local realization. The other problem is temporal in nature: the correlation between the "look" of the future "pattern" today and the eventual weather outcome. These things are not so well correlated out beyond 10 days because modeling has minimal skill at this range. So really what you're talking about is the correlation between a characterization of the "pattern" today and the weather today... which is admittedly a somewhat stronger correlation. Though still not great with today's "pattern" vs. weather outcome a good example. However, that's still a very different thing than the future correlations that everybody refers to when they talk about a "good look."

I just think "patterns" and "good looks" are vastly oversimplified. They are phrases coined from Mt. Stupid for those familiar with Dunning-Kruger. Everybody loves to think these concepts are strongly correlated with local snow. I concede there is a correlation, I just think it's relatively weak. I believe snow is a local phenomenon that is often given or denied by nuance in the evolution of features. Even if "patterns" are definable to a degree that allows meaningful local correlations with weather outcomes, we cannot see these patterns coming any better than we can see, for example, specific longitudinal jet structures and height fields. So my feeling is that most are sniffing around in the wrong places. I would think experiences like this winter would cause some to see the light... but many stubbornly persist.

For the love of god please retire this phrase. Times mentioned this winter: 8274 Times the look materialized: 0.5

We're celebrating snow flurries on an above freezing, mid-January day I sure wish I had flurries here in NJ

So far this winter feels relatively active for such a snowless winter. In my memory a lot of our dud winters have long dry periods. The reason being that typically in Jan we can sneak an inch or two on the front end or back end.

CMC offers some hope for the end of week event, but I think it's going to be really hard to keep that one south of us. The ULL and primary are headed to the Lakes come hell or high water. Starting to lose hope that we get lucky for that one.

I suppose it's possible I'm in favor of anything that brings us snow. Raindrops and snowflakes need nuclei - usually dust particles - to crystallize around and transfer vapor into the solid phase. I believe salt particularly near coastal regions, e.g., LI, coastal SNE, are very efficient at facilitating crystallization. My guess is this would promote flurries vs. drizzle but it's possible it could allow precipitation to form below the normal crystallization zone.

I didn't see any models with measurable today - could have missed it though. Although I did notice the HRRR indicating flurries tonight. Glancing at soundings, the snow looks to be forming at a low level. Maybe models were assuming no crystallization at those temperatures. It could be the salt nuclei facilitating snow growth and crystallization. Hopefully flurries/snow showers continue all day into tomorrow.

I haven't noticed it moving closer on guidance over the past day. The NAM had 1 run that brought a some snow to most of LI, but since then everything focused on EMA. This maybe could have been a coastal grazer for us with a different upper level evolution. That said, the HRRR suggests that maybe flurries and snow showers are possible for eastern areas for the next day or so.

As soon as people stop obsessing about MJO, PNA, ENSO, EPO, WAR etc, they will become better forecasters. We simplify weather prediction into these loosely defined entities. And then we talk as if they are real things that have a causal impact on outcomes. It's almost like we anthropomorphize them. The problem remains that models are no better at predicting future states of these indices than they are predicting 500mb height fields. So even if MJO, PNA, NAO are loosely correlated with regional weather outcomes, we cannot accurately predict these beyond 7-10 days. And these indices have no causal power. They don't force anything to happen. They are simply averaged numerical approximations of geophysical parameters that are all connected and interwoven into global ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. They reflect the current state of the global ocean-atmosphere couplet as opposed to predicting its future state.

Even the CMC and GFS runs that were bringing snow to NYC N&W had a primary SLP into the Lakes. That's not a "pattern" change. I'm rooting for snow as much as anyone, and it could happen next week. But people claiming to see positive changes coming are seeing a mirage. They simple don't learn from their experiences.